GCLV and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)
[2018] AATA 4460
•30 November 2018
GCLV and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2018] AATA 4460 (30 November 2018)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2018/5284
Re:GCLV
APPLICANT
Minister for Home AffairsAnd
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Dr L Bygrave, Member
Date:30 November 2018
Place:Sydney
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
...............[sgd].........................................................
Dr L Bygrave, Member
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION - mandatory cancellation of visa - substantial criminal record - discretion to revoke cancellation of visa - whether there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation should be revoked - Ministerial Direction No. 65 - protection of the Australian community - nature and seriousness of conduct - common assault - shoplifting - possession of prohibited drug - supply of prohibited drug - larceny - unlawful entry onto land - break and enter - take and drive conveyance - driving offences - risk to the Australian community should further offences be committed or other serious conduct engaged in - best interests of minor children - expectations of the Australian community - international non-refoulement obligations - strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia - extent of impediments if removed from Australia - decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
Ali v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 650
Anaki and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 693
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Cth), Direction [No 65] – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA, 22 December 2014
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Cth), Direction [No. 75] – Refusal of protection visas relying on section 36(1C) and section 36(2C)(b), 5 September 2017
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr L Bygrave, Member
30 November 2018
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, GCLV, arrived in Australia from El Salvador in 1983 when he was 22 years old. He has resided in Australia on a class BF transitional (permanent) visa (the visa) since 1 September 1994.
On 27 September 2017, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) issued the applicant with a notice advising that his visa had been cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). This decision was made on the basis that the applicant did not pass the character test because he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more and therefore had a “substantial criminal record” as defined in section 501(7) of the Act.
On 26 October 2017, the applicant submitted a request for revocation of the mandatory visa cancellation decision pursuant to section 501CA of the Act.
On 10 September 2018, a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (the Minister) decided not to revoke the visa cancellation decision and the applicant subsequently applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of this decision.
The matter was heard in Sydney on 22 November 2018. The applicant did not have legal representation. He and his mother attended the hearing in person and gave oral evidence.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND POLICY
The power to revoke a visa cancellation
Section 501(3A) of the Act provides that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of sections 501(6) and 501(7).
Section 501(6) defines the character test. Relevantly, a person does not pass the character test if the person has a “substantial criminal record” as defined by section 501(7). Section 501(7) of the Act provides that, for the purposes of the character test, a person has a “substantial criminal record” if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
Pursuant to section 501CA(4) of the Act, the Minister may revoke the original cancellation decision if the Minister is satisfied that the person passes the character test; or there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked. This is a discretionary power.
The applicant does not pass the character test in section 501(6) of the Act because his criminal record, set out in Annexure A and summarised at paragraphs 26 to 28 below, meets the statutory definition of a “substantial criminal record” in section 501(7) of the Act. I must therefore consider whether there is another reason to revoke the original cancellation decision.
The power of the Tribunal to review the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa is provided by section 500 of the Act. Under section 499(1), the Minister has given written directions as to the exercise of the power to review the decision. Section 499(2A) of the Act provides that these directions must be complied with. The relevant direction is Direction No. 65 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA which commenced on 22 December 2014 (the Direction).
Direction No. 65
Paragraph 7 of the Direction sets out how the discretion is to be exercised. It states:
Informed by the principles in paragraph 6.3…, a decision-maker:
…must take into account the considerations in Part C, in order to determine whether the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa will be revoked.
Under the heading of “General Guidance” at paragraph 6.2, the Direction states in part:
The Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. The principles below [in paragraph 6.3] are of critical importance in furthering that objective, and reflect community values and standards with respect to determining whether the risk of future harm from a non-citizen is unacceptable.
In paragraph 6.3, the Minister sets out the principles that provide a framework to approach the task of deciding whether to revoke the decision to cancel a visa. The principles are:
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere.
(3)A non-citizen who has committed a serious crime, including of a violent or sexual nature, and particularly against vulnerable members of the community such as minors, the elderly or disabled, should generally expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(4)In some circumstances, criminal offending or other conduct, and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, may be so serious, that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable. In these circumstances, even other strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa.
(5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by people who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct in relation to a non-citizen who has lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(6)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, reflecting that there should be no expectation that such people should be allowed to come to, or remain permanently in, Australia.
(7)The length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, are considerations in the context of determining whether that non-citizen’s visa should be cancelled, or their visa application refused.
Paragraph 8 of the Direction requires the decision-maker to take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations, and one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations. In applying the considerations, information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.
Part C of the Direction sets out the primary considerations the Tribunal must take into account in deciding whether to revoke the cancellation of the applicant’s visa as follows:
(a)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(c)expectations of the Australian community.
Other considerations in Part C relevant to this matter are:
(a)international non-refoulement obligations;
(b)strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; and
(c)the extent of impediments if removed.
EVIDENCE
The following facts are based on evidence before the Tribunal, which comprises:
·written statements and oral evidence from the applicant and his mother;
·records and documents relating to his criminal offences;
·documents from the Department relating to the applicant; and
·country (El Salvador) information prepared by the Department.
The applicant was born in Berlin in El Salvador in 1961. He attended school until the age of 10 years and then commenced work as a baker and undertook seasonal employment picking coffee beans. The applicant provided written and oral evidence that his father and his father’s friends “molested” him when he was a child.[1] He has used alcohol and drugs (cannabis) from the age of 10 years.
[1] Exhibit G-G13 at 109.
When he was 12 years old, the applicant and his mother left his father. His mother later remarried and the applicant’s sister was born in 1975. The applicant said he has not spoken with his father since soon after the applicant arrived in Australia.
The applicant was detained as a “political prisoner” in El Salvador. The applicant denied any involvement in government or anti-government activity but said he was randomly arrested by the “death squads” operating in El Salvador during the 1980-1992 civil war. The applicant was jailed for more than two years and interrogated, tortured and physically bashed. With the assistance of Amnesty International, he was released from jail and came to Australia as the holder of a special humanitarian program – Central Americas (K4721) visa. The applicant’s mother and sister subsequently arrived in Australia in 1984.
Since arriving in Australia in 1983, the applicant has had intermittent employment as a labourer or machine operator. He has also been in receipt of social security payments, including the disability support pension. While the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal about his periods of employment was imprecise, it appears that he worked from about 1983 to 1990. His oral evidence was that he last worked four years ago “as a volunteer”.
The applicant began using heroin when he was about 30 years old. A report by a consultant forensic psychiatrist dated 21 November 2002 described the applicant as having a long history of intravenous drug use, “heroin in particular”, and experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).[2]
[2] Exhibit ST-R6 at 92.
The applicant has had multiple periods of homelessness. He told the Tribunal that he has been in a de facto relationship with an Australian citizen for the past three years. His partner has not provided any evidence to the Tribunal. The applicant stated his partner was unwell and difficult to contact by telephone. He explained that she was “heavy on methadone because of her drug addiction” and he last spoke with her by telephone about six weeks prior to the Tribunal hearing. The applicant’s mother last spoke with his partner about two weeks prior to the hearing date. The applicant’s evidence was that, if he is released into the Australian community, he would resume living with his partner at their rented accommodation.
The applicant has a daughter “B” who was born in 2006. He described her as a “methadone baby”; due to her biological mother’s drug use, “B” was placed in the care of the applicant’s mother when she was 11 months old. Pursuant to an Order of Children’s Court made on 29 February 2008, parental responsibility of “B” was allocated to her paternal grandmother (the applicant’s mother) until she attains the age of 18 years.[3] “B” continues to live with the applicant’s mother, who she calls “mum”, and the applicant’s sister.[4] The applicant said that, when he was not in jail, he visited his daughter daily to assist his mother with home duties and taking his daughter to and from child-care/school. He continues to provide financial support, when money is available, and speaks to his daughter every day by telephone. The applicant’s mother and daughter visit him weekly at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (Villawood).
[3] Exhibit ST-R18.
[4] Exhibit A1 at 1.
Neither the applicant nor his mother have returned to El Salvador since arriving in Australia. The applicant said he knows no one in El Salvador. The applicant’s mother told the Tribunal her sister still resides in El Salvador; however, they only speak by telephone about once a year and the applicant could not stay with his aunt as she lives in a “dangerous neighbourhood”.
Criminal record
The applicant has an extensive criminal record dating from September 1986 to November 2017. His National Police Certificate dated 7 December 2017 shows that, during this period, he appeared before Courts on 56 occasions and was convicted in relation to 103 separate offences.[5]
[5] Exhibit G-G2 at 23-31.
The applicant’s offences, as described in his National Police Certificate, are set out in Annexure A to this decision and include convictions for:
·stealing / shoplifting / larceny / receive or dispose of stolen property;
·goods in personal custody / goods in personal custody reasonably suspected of being stolen;
·possess prohibited drug / possess or attempt to possess prescribed restricted substance / bring or introduce proscribed poison into place of detention;
·self-administer or attempt to self-administer prohibited drug;
·possess prohibited drug (cannabis) / supply prohibited drug (cannabis) / possess prohibited drug (heroin);
·unregistered driving / unlicensed driving / negligent driving / driving in a dangerous manner;
·common assault / assault with intent to rob with striking; and
·enter enclosed land not prescribed premises without lawful excuse.
On 4 July 2017, the applicant appeared in the Burwood Local Court and was convicted of the offence “Shoplifting value <=$2000-t2” and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of four months with conditions. This order was confirmed in the Downing Centre District Court on 20 September 2017 and the applicant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine months with conditions. The order was varied in the Downing Centre District Court on 23 November 2017 and the applicant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months.[6]
[6] Exhibit G-G2 at 23.
The applicant’s Conviction, Sentences and Appeals Record maintained by the NSW Department of Corrective Services shows he has spent the following extended periods in imprisonment as a result of his offences:
·23 May 1990 – 22 February 1991;
·22 February 1992 – 20 April 1992;
·6 July 1993 – 30 November 1994;
·2 March 1995 – 5 October 1995;
·21 August 1996 – 2 September 1997;
·25 August 2000 – 24 February 2001;
·23 April 2002 – 21 September 2003;
·2 October 2004 – 26 March 2005;
·9 July 2005 – 7 September 2005;
·24 November 2005 – 23 February 2006;
·13 March 2009 – 23 April 2009;
·18 June 2009 – 2 July 2009;
·6 October 2009 – 19 October 2009;
·30 November 2009 – 21 May 2010;
·29 January 2011 – 27 July 2011;
·28 January 2015 – 19 March 2015;
·21 May 2015 – 4 June 2015; and
·4 July 2017 – 3 January 2018.[7]
These periods total approximately eight years from May 1990 to January 2018.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1 – PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL AND OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT
[7] Exhibit G-G6 at 39-54.
Paragraph 13.1 of the Direction outlines the Government’s commitment to protecting the Australian community from harm by non-citizens and requires that I consider:
(a)the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s conduct to date; and
(b)the risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The nature and seriousness of the applicant’s conduct to date
The applicant’s criminal record, set out at Annexure A and summarised at paragraphs 26 to 28 above, shows a pattern of repeated criminal offending by the applicant in Australia over a period of more than 30 years. As outlined in paragraph 29 above, the applicant’s offences have resulted in him being incarcerated on 18 occasions for an accumulated (total) period of approximately eight years.
The applicant’s criminal offending includes two violence-related incidents, the offence of common assault and the offence of assault with intent to rob with striking. His record, however, mostly reflects a repeated pattern of stealing items to sell and fund his drug use.
The applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled because of his conviction of shoplifting on 4 July 2017, which resulted in the applicant being sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. A New South Wales Police Fact Sheet described the offence in which the applicant and an associate stealing bottles of perfume from Chemist Warehouse to the value of $2,047.48.[8] The offence was captured on CCTV and the applicant and his associate were later charged with the offence.
[8] Exhibit ST-R13.
In sentencing remarks in the Burwood Local Court on 4 July 2017, Magistrate Seagrave made the following observations:
[The applicant] had a significant conviction history for offending by committing offences of dishonesty like larceny and goods in custody…
[The applicant] was 56 years of age; he was single; he claimed to have a ten year old daughter by another relationship; he was cared for by his elderly mother; he claimed to be involved to an extent with his daughter’s care; originally from El Salvador; he claimed to come [sic] here as a political prisoner; he claimed to have been abused in El Salvador; he had drug and alcohol issues of some considerable long standing; and it seemed that he had failed, refused or neglected over the years to address his drug problems in a meaningful way, though he claimed today to be involved in a drug and alcohol treatment that he was finding beneficial. It seems he had no credible work history; he was in support of a disability pension.
The offence on 17 January [2017] was aggravated by these factors. It was planned criminal conduct. It was committed for his own financial gain… There was no other sensible basis for the commission of this offence involving the quantity of property stolen and also aggravated by the loss to Chemist Warehouse. There was little by way of mitigation. Prospects of rehabilitation were poor and he was at high risk of re-offending in my view. Parity applied a firm deterrent penalty was warranted and one that emphasised a degree of specific deterrence given his inclination to offend in this way. Regrettably other dispositions by the Court in the past, including sentences of imprisonment, had not had the deterrent effect. The defendant appeared to be a recidivous offender…
I propose imposing a sentence of imprisonment that I trust will reflect the objective seriousness of the offence and all purposes of sentencing, but with some emphasis on deterrence, denunciation and adequate punishment. There is no sensible basis for a finding of special circumstances.[9]
[9] Exhibit G-G4 at 34.
I note the Magistrate, in sentencing the applicant to 12 months imprisonment, considered the mitigating circumstances of the applicant’s situation and his “poor” prospects of rehabilitation.
The applicant did not dispute his criminal record at the Tribunal hearing and accepted that his offending mostly related to stealing items to fund his alcohol, drug and gambling addictions. However, some of his evidence was not consistent with his criminal record in the National Police Certificate dated 7 December 2017. For example, an undated written statement filed by the applicant with his application for a protection visa lodged on 18 January 2018 noted his “last offence was 5 years over 5 years ago [sic]” and his “only offence that has involved violence” was his offence of common assault.[10] Despite his National Police Certificate showing criminal offences in 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016, the applicant reiterated at the Tribunal hearing that he had not offended in the past five years.
[10] Exhibit ST-R3 at 47.
The applicant’s application for a protection visa at part C, question 73 also does not correctly set out the details of his convictions, charges or crimes.[11] The applicant’s evidence at the Tribunal hearing was that he misunderstood this question as he thought it related only to offences in other countries, not Australia.
[11] Exhibit ST-R3 at 70.
On balance, I found that the applicant’s evidence was superficial. Although the applicant said he was remorseful and wanted a “second chance”, his description of his offending showed no insight into the causes of either his criminal behaviour or his addictions. In my view, the applicant’s evidence and remorse was not consistent with his substantial criminal record over a period of 30 years or with the sentences of imprisonment imposed by the Courts.
The applicant has received notices from the Department advising that his criminal conduct may result in the cancellation of his visa. On 19 February 2003, the (then) Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Indigenous Affairs wrote to the applicant advising him the Minister would be making a decision whether to cancel his visa and providing him the opportunity to comment.[12] The (then) Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs wrote to the applicant on 2 August 2006 and 19 September 2006, again advising the Minister or delegate is considering whether to cancel his visa and providing him with the opportunity to comment.[13] On 11 June 2007, the (then) Department of Immigration and Citizenship wrote to the applicant stating that the Minister had decided on this occasion not to cancel his visa and providing the following warning:
However you are warned that if you engage in any further conduct that might bring you within the scope of section 501, cancellation of your visa may be considered again… Please note that disregarding this warning may weigh heavily against you if the Minister or a delegate considers your case in the future.[emphasis in original][14]
[12] Exhibit ST-R19.
[13] Exhibits ST-R28 and R29.
[14] Exhibit G-G15 at 132.
The (then) Department of Immigration and Citizenship wrote to the applicant again on 30 August 2011 advising that his visa was being considered for cancellation on the grounds that he appeared to have a substantial criminal record.[15]
[15] Exhibit G-G16.
The applicant made written representations to the Minister in response to these warnings in 2003 and 2006. I am satisfied, based on the evidence before the Tribunal, that the applicant was aware from 2003 that further criminal offending by him may result in the cancellation of his visa.
Considering the relevant factors set out in paragraph 13.1.1 of the Direction, I find that:
·The applicant’s record of criminal offences in Australia includes repeated serious offences relating to drug offences and theft.
·The applicant has been sentenced to terms of imprisonment on numerous occasions. This indicates the objective seriousness of the applicant’s offending because sentences involving terms of imprisonment are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy.
·There has been a cumulative effect due to the applicant’s repeated offending and he has continued to offend despite repeated warnings from the judicial system.
·The applicant received written warnings from the Department in 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2011 that any further offending would result in the cancellation of his visa.
I am satisfied that the frequency and cumulative effect of the applicant’s criminal offending over a period of 30 years is a matter of extremely serious concern. I find that the nature and seriousness of his offending weighs heavily against him.
The risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
In his written reasons for requesting revocation dated 8 October 2018, the applicant noted:
…I’m taking full responsibility for my action and I’m showing a great remorse for what I’ve done. I cannot turn bac time and change the past but however what I can do is make the future better one not only for myself and my family but also for the community around me. I have learnt my lesson and I know that I’m not a threat to the community… I do have a great support from my family here in Australia they’re planning to erol me into long-term counselling and support me with services that will help me on a long-term. I am strongly planing to give back to the community…and volunteer at charities… I’m entirely capable to go back and turn my life around. I believe in getting a second chance…[16] [replicated from original]
[16] Exhibit G-G11 at 90.
At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant said he would seek to participate in a rehabilitation program if he is released from immigration detention into the Australian community. To date, however, the applicant has undertaken no investigation of potential programs and has no plans to attend any programs to address his drugs, alcohol or gambling addictions.
The evidence before the Tribunal suggests the applicant has previously attempted to deal with his drug and alcohol addictions but has subsequently relapsed. A pre-sentence report dated 28 November 2002 noted:
[The applicant] has an extensive history of drug abuse, which has included abuse of prescribed medication, cannabis, cocaine and in particular heroine. He has made several attempts to address his substance abuse by detox and in hospital and participation in residential rehabilitation programs. Unfortunately, it would seem he has not managed to persevere beyond the assessment phase.[17]
[17] Exhibit ST-R8 at 103.
The applicant also participated in the drug court program in 2009 and 2015 but breached the conditions of the program.
I accept the applicant has a long history of alcohol and drug abuse; he began using alcohol and drugs when he was 10 years old and he is now 57 years old. He has been given multiple opportunities to attend drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs through the judicial system. I asked the applicant at the hearing whether anything has changed from his previous attempts to cease using drugs and alcohol. He said that he is “older” and has responsibilities to his mother and daughter, but acknowledged that “nothing much has changed”. The applicant stated he will resume living with his partner (who has used drugs in the past) and mix with the same people in the same area. He passively noted it “is hard to not become caught in the vicious cycle” of drugs.
At the Tribunal hearing, both the applicant and his mother asked for him to be given a “second chance”. I note his mother also requested the applicant be given a “second chance” in letters she wrote to the Department dated 10 March 2003 and 23 October 2006. It is clear from the applicant’s criminal record – which shows that he continued to offend many times after receiving written warnings from the Department in 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2011 – that he has received numerous “second chances”.
Apart from the applicant’s verbal assurance, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that indicates he will not commit further offences if he is released into the Australian community. I place limited weight on the applicant’s verbal assurances in view of his extensive criminal record over 30 years and lack of positive engagement with rehabilitation programs. I also note that the factors of his age and responsibilities to his mother and daughter have not averted either his drug use or criminal offending in the past.
In considering the harm and potential risk to the Australian community if the applicant were to reoffend in the future, I am mindful of the nature and seriousness of his past criminal behaviour including the cumulative effect of his repeated and serious offending behaviour. I cannot be satisfied on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant will not resume a pattern of behaviour of using drugs and offending if he is released into the Australian community.
On balance, I find that the protection of the Australian community weighs heavily against revoking the cancellation decision.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 2 – THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA AFFECTED BY THE DECISION
Paragraph 13.2(4) of the Direction sets out the factors that I must consider in relation to whether revoking the cancellation decision is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. Relevant to this factor are the nature and duration of the relationship, the extent to which the applicant is likely to play a positive parental role, the likely effect any separation would have on the child, and whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role.
In a personal circumstances form dated 8 October 2017, the applicant stated that his daughter “B” is 11 years old and “heavily relies on [him]”.[18] As outlined in paragraph 24 above, the applicant’s mother has legal parental responsibility for “B” who has lived with the applicant’s mother and sister since she was 11 months old. “B”’s biological mother also has visitation rights to her daughter but the applicant’s mother told the Tribunal she has not seen “B” in four years.
[18] Exhibit G-G12 at 100.
The oral evidence of both the applicant and his mother to the Tribunal indicates the applicant has maintained a close and emotional relationship with his daughter despite his periods in prison and detention. I also accept the applicant’s evidence that he seeks to provide financial support for his daughter when he has money, that he speaks to “B” by telephone daily and that she visits him at Villawood every week. However, I note the applicant will not reside with his daughter if released into the community; rather, he will resume living with his partner.
While the applicant does not have any legal parental responsibility for “B” and does not provide any regular or substantial finances towards her support, I accept that he and his daughter have maintained a close parent-child relationship.
Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, I find it is in the best interests of the applicant’s daughter that the cancellation decision is revoked.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3 – THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
Paragraph 13.3(1) of the Direction provides:
The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has breached, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach this trust or where the non-citizen has been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere, it may be appropriate to not revoke the mandatory visa cancellation of such a person. Non-revocation may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not hold a visa. Decision-makers should have due regard to the Government’s views in this respect.
Having regard to the principles set out in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction, set out in paragraph 13 above, I am mindful the Australian community anticipates a nuanced and balanced approach to considering the extent to which the applicant is a member of the Australian community even though he is not a citizen. The deliberation of Australian community expectations involves “bringing appropriate perspective and proportionality to bear in the assessment of risk.”[19] I therefore consider any positive contributions the applicant has made to society, such as employment, community activities and/or family relationships; and weigh this against his adverse and antisocial behaviour.
[19] Anaki and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 693 at [89].
The applicant has resided in Australia since 1983, a period of 35 years. He was employed for short periods from 1983 to 1990 and he has undertaken volunteer work with Parramatta Mission. There is no evidence the applicant has participated in any other community activities. The applicant’s written statements focus on his family, primarily his relationships with his mother, sister, daughter and partner.
As described in paragraphs 18 to 20, the applicant experienced a difficult childhood and began using alcohol and drugs when he was 10 years old. He was incarcerated and tortured by the “death squads” in El Salvador. The applicant in his oral evidence to the Tribunal described his life as a “roller-coaster”. In view of his traumatic experiences, I believe the Australian community would have significant sympathy for the applicant’s circumstances.
Nonetheless, the applicant has demonstrated long-standing drug use and an associated pattern of committing serious offences and disregard for the Australian law and judicial system since 1986. He has ignored written warnings from the Department in 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2011 that his continued criminal offending may result in the cancellation of his visa. In assessing all the relevant evidence against the requirements of the Direction, I find the applicant’s past experiences cannot continue to be an excuse for his serious criminal offending.
On balance, I am satisfied the third primary consideration counts heavily against revoking the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS IN DIRECTION NO. 65
Paragraph 14 of the Direction sets out other considerations that must be taken into account in deciding whether to revoke the visa cancellation. Relevant considerations in this matter are international non-refoulement obligations, the strength, nature and duration of the applicant’s ties to Australia, and extent of impediments if he is removed.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that other considerations including the impact on Australian business interests and the impact on victims are relevant to these proceedings.
International non-refoulement obligations
Paragraph 14.1(1) of the Direction articulates Australia’s non-refoulement obligations in accordance with international human rights treaties and, in particular, the “obligation not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where they will be at risk of a specific type of harm”. The Direction, at paragraphs 14.1(2) and (4), also states:
(2) The existence of a non-refoulement obligation does not preclude non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa. This is because Australia will not remove a non-citizen, as a consequence of the cancellation of their visa, to the country in respect of which the non-refoulement obligation exists.
…
(4) Where a non-citizen makes claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations and that non-citizen would be able to make a valid application for another visa if the mandatory cancellation is not revoked, it is unnecessary to determine whether non-refoulement obligations are owed to the non-citizen for the purposes of determining whether the cancellation of their visa should be revoked.
Relying on paragraph 14.1(4), the Minister provided written submissions that it is unnecessary for the decision-maker (in this matter, the Tribunal) to make a determination in relation to international non-refoulement obligations where the applicant can make a valid application for another visa.[20]
[20] Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions, 12 November 2018 at [49].
The applicant lodged an application for a protection visa on 18 January 2018. Unfortunately, the applicant was notified by the Department in a letter dated 18 January 2018 that this application is invalid because he did not pay the base application charge of $35.[21] I note that the Department has advised the applicant that he may make a new application for a protection visa.
[21] Exhibit ST-R4, at 76.
The applicant has made various claims regarding non-refoulement obligations. These include that he was incarcerated and tortured as a “political prisoner” in El Salvador for approximately two years prior to coming to Australia and he will be “persecuted” if he is deported to El Salvador.[22]
[22] Exhibits G-G12, at 101 and ST-R3, at 46.
I accept these claims by the applicant. However, in considering non-refoulement obligations, I have regard to the decision made on 10 May 2018 by Flick J in Ali v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.[23]
[23] [2018] FCA 650.
In view of Direction No. 75 – Refusal of protection visas relying on section 36(1C) and section 36(2C)(b) (Direction No. 75) made by the Minister under section 499 of the Act on 5 September 2017, Flick J held that:
To the extent that an application may be made at some point of time in the future for a Protection visa, that being an application which may well be expected given the fact that the visa cancelled by the delegate was a Global Special Humanitarian visa and the submission already made as to non-refoulement, that would be an application to be resolved if and when it was made and resolved in accordance with Direction No 75.[24]
[24] Ali v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 650 at [30].
Consequently, I find in the circumstances of this matter, where it is open for the applicant to reapply for a protection visa, that any potential claims by the applicant in relation to non-refoulement should be addressed in accordance with Direction No. 75 if or when he reapplies for a protection visa.
Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
In considering the strength, nature and duration of the applicant’s ties to Australia, paragraph 14.2(1) of the Direction provides that:
Reflecting the principles at 6.3, decision-makers must have regard to:
(a)How long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:
(i) less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
(ii) more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.
(b)The strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia, including the effect of non-revocation on the non-citizen’s immediate family in Australia (where those family members are Australian citizens, permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely).
In his personal circumstances form dated 8 October 2017, the applicant stated it would be “devastating” to his partner and would “impact her health” if his visa is cancelled.[25] He also outlined his relationships with his daughter and mother and wrote:
…I’m please begging to reconsider to be reinstated as my mom my 11 year old daughter tremendously depend on me… so I’m please asking to let me be with my family…[26]
[25] Exhibit G-G12 at 95.
[26] Exhibit G-G12 at 97.
The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal confirmed that all his known family – his mother, sister and daughter – reside in Australia and are Australian citizens. The applicant’s partner also resides in Australia and is an Australian citizen.
The applicant’s mother gave extremely emotional evidence to the Tribunal; I have no doubt the cancellation of the applicant’s visa would be devastating to both her and the applicant’s daughter. The applicant’s mother is elderly and has some health issues, including diabetes.
Given the strength of the applicant’s ties to his family in Australia, I am satisfied that consideration of the applicant’s ties to Australia weighs in his favour. However, the weight I give this consideration must be reduced because of the limited period the applicant has contributed positively to the Australian community.
Extent of impediments if the applicant is removed
The extent of impediments if the applicant is removed from Australia relies on his capacity to reside in El Salvador. Pursuant to paragraph 14.5 of the Direction, I must consider the applicant’s age and health, whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers, and any available social, medical and/or economic support.
The applicant is 57 years old. Apart from the applicant’s addictions to alcohol and drugs, there is limited medical evidence before the Tribunal about his health. A consultant forensic psychiatrist’s report in 2002 noted the applicant had symptoms of PTSD arising from his incarceration in El Salvador; the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that he had previously taken medication for “voices in his head” but this condition was not current. The applicant also stated that he had undergone treatment for hepatitis C while in jail in 2017 and he was not aware if this treatment had been successful. While I note the applicant has previously been in receipt of disability support pension, there was no recent medical evidence before the Tribunal in relation to his impairments.
At the request of the Tribunal, the Minister filed a report on “El Salvador: Death squads in civil war – Mistreatment for political reasons – Health care, employment and welfare” prepared by the Department of Home Affairs on 8 November 2018 (the DHA Report).[27] The DHA Report briefly described the background of the civil war in El Salvador from 1980 to 1992, the peace agreement signed in January 1992 between the Government of El Salvador and Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN), and the “Commission on the Truth for El Salvador”, which acknowledged “human rights violations were committed in a systematic and organized manner by groups acting as death squads” during the civil war.[28] The DHA Report also referred to a 2017 report on human rights practices in El Salvador by the USA Department of State that recorded “no reports ‘of political prisoners or detainees’, or ‘that the government or its agents committed politically motivated killings’ [in 2017]…”[29]
[27] Exhibit ST-R5.
[28] Exhibit ST-R5 at 81-82.
[29] Exhibit ST-R5 at 83.
The applicant made submissions about being “persecuted” if he returns to El Salvador. In response, the Minister directed me to an “International Obligations and Humanitarian Concerns Assessment” undertaken by the (then) Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in relation to the applicant on 28 December 2006, which stated:
[The applicant] left El Salvador during a time of civil war when there were gross violations of human rights and few mechanisms available to effect change. Due to improvements in the structure of civil society he would not be at risk of human rights abuses should he return to the country today.[30]
[30] Exhibit ST-R33 at 266.
As set out above in paragraph 72, the applicant may make submissions in relation to non-refoulement that will be addressed in accordance with Direction No. 75 if he reapplies for a protection visa.
The applicant and his mother also outlined their concern that the applicant would be killed by the criminal gangs operating in El Salvador. A World Health Organisation report on El Salvador in November 2013 confirmed:
The most important political challenge is internal security and the mounting social violence, fuelled by a proliferation of fire arms. Violence committed by gangs of young delinquents (“maras”) is a major public concern with implications not only for personal safety, but also extending beyond El Salvador’s borders through links established between local bands and foreign criminal organisations… The situation became so dramatic in 2006 that all segments of society reflected on their own possible role in confronting the phenomenon…[31]
[31] Exhibit ST-R17 at 190.
The “BTI 2018 Country Report for El Salvador” also reported:
Perhaps the most intense and acrimonious political debate over the last five years has centred on how to address social and criminal violence…[32]
[32] Exhibit ST-R16 at 135.
I also have regard to the following reports provided by the Minister containing information about the current situation in El Salvador in relation to social services and healthcare.
A United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council report on El Salvador in 2014 reported the following about social services:
46. Between 2009 and 2014 El Salvador also took steps to combat poverty and social exclusion…
47. Various presidential programmes have also been put in place…to overcome poverty and social inequalities through coordinated action by the public administration and community social services… [A] basic pension is provided to all persons over the age of 70 who have no income.
48. In April 2014 [legislation] was passed..., which recognizes that the entire population of El Salvador has the right to a minimum level of social services that should be provided by the State.[33]
[33] Exhibit ST-R14 at 122.
The “BTI 2018 Country Report for El Salvador” stated in relation to health, education and social welfare policies:
Social policy is primarily focused on education and health... The impact of government efforts in these fields can be gauged by the increase of life expectancy and education achievement levels. However, both health care and education are below the standards expected by many inside and outside the country…
[The Ministry of Health] administers free health clinics and hospitals…
The FMLN governments since 2009 have underlined public spending and social programs as their main contribution to reducing social inequalities and expanding opportunities for individual improvement. Budgetary allocations devoted to health and education have both increased… The government considers access to free or inexpensive health and education a direct subsidy to family budgets.[34]
[34] Exhibit ST-R16 at 133, 137 and 151.
Additionally, the “BTI 2018 Country Report for El Salvador” made the following remarks about poverty, socioeconomic development and employment:
Persistently high levels of poverty, long-term ingrained socio-economic inequalities and social exclusion are among the greatest challenges to [El Salvador’s] socio-economic development…
The overall unemployment rate rose slightly from 5.6% in 2013 to 5.9% in 2014 and to 7% in 2015. However, this data does not take account of underemployment, which is considerable given the size of the informal sector of the economy…[35]
[35] Exhibit ST-R16 at 145.
Based on the information before the Tribunal, it is clear that the impediments faced by the applicant if he returns to El Salvador – particularly in terms of personal security and employment – are significant.
In the applicant’s application for protection visa dated 18 January 2018, he wrote that he was “stateless”.[36] The Minister, in response to the Tribunal’s request for clarification about this issue, noted that there is no evidence the applicant has relinquished his El Salvadorian citizenship and he remains a citizen of El Salvador.
[36] Exhibit ST-R3 at 56.
Based on all the evidence before the Tribunal, I find there would be substantial impediments to the applicant commencing a life in El Salvador and this weighs in the applicant’s favour.
CONCLUSION
The first and third primary considerations weigh heavily against the revocation of the cancellation decision. The second primary consideration weighs in favour of the applicant.
In regard to the other considerations, I find the international non-refoulement obligations have limited relevance to this decision. The applicant’s ties to Australia and the impediments to the applicant’s removal from Australia weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
Noting the requirement that primary considerations should be given greater weight than the other considerations, I am satisfied on balance of the primary and other considerations that it is not appropriate to revoke the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the preceding 95 (ninety-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr L Bygrave, Member
......................[sgd]..................................................
Associate
Dated: 30 November 2018
Date(s) of hearing: 22 November 2018 Applicant: In person Solicitors for the Respondent: Minter Ellison
ANNEXURE A
Court Court date Offence Result Downing Centre District Court 23 November 2017 Shoplifting value
<=$2000
First convicted by the Burwood Local Court;
severity appeal lodged; Downing Centre District Court confirmed orders; further severity appeal lodged; Downing Centre District Court varied orders, applicant sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months commencing on 4 July 2017 ending on 3 January 2018, non-parole period 6 months commencing 4 July 2017 ending 3 January 2018Parramatta Local Court 9 August 2017 Goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen (not motor vehicle) Sentenced to imprisonment for 1 month commencing 9 August 2017 ending 8 September 2017 Parramatta Local Court 24 May 2017 Goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen (not motor vehicle) Sentenced to imprisonment for 4 months commencing 24 May 2017 ending 23 September 2017, suspended on entry into section 12 bond (and, it appears, return of the property to the owner) Blacktown Local Court 1 December 2016 Possess a prohibited
drug;
$300 fine; drug to be destroyed Possess/attempt to
possess a prescribedrestricted substance
$250 fine; drug to be destroyed Parramatta Drug Court 4 May 2016 Possess a prohibited
drug;
Imprisonment for 1 month commencing 5 March 2016; Shoplifting value
<=$2000
Imprisonment for 2 months commencing 5 March 2016 ending 4 May 2016 Parramatta Local Court 22 May 2013 Enter enclosed land no
prescribed premiseswithout lawful excuse
$110 fine Burwood Local Court 5 April 2012 Enter vehicle or boat
without consent ofowner/occupier;
Section 10(a) conviction with no other penalty; costs Enter enclosed land no
prescribed premiseswithout lawful excuse
Section 10(a) conviction with no other penalty; costs Burwood Local Court 8 September 2011 Larceny value <=$2000 Section 10(a) conviction with no other Penalty Sydney District Court 21 April 2011 Shoplifting value
<=$2000;
First convicted by the Downing Centre Local Court, severity appeal lodged, conviction confirmed (imprisonment 3 months) Shoplifting value
<=$2000;
First convicted by the Downing Centre Local Court, severity appeal lodged, conviction confirmed: in lieu imprisonment: 9 months commencing 28 February 2011 ending 27 November 2011 non-parole period
with conditions: 5 months commencing 28 February 2011 concluding 27 July 2011, release subject to supervisionDowning Centre Local
Court
10 March 2011 Common assault Section 9 bond 12 months Enter enclosed land not prescribed premises without lawful excuse Section 10(a) conviction with no other penalty Parramatta Drug Court 5 March 2010 Fail to appear in
accordance with bailgranted undertaking;
Imprisonment 10 months commencing 22 May 2009, non-parole period 3 months commencing 22 May 2009 Shoplifting value
<=$2000;
Imprisonment 10 months commencing 22 August 2009, non-parole period 3 months commencing 22 August 2009 Shoplifting value
<=$2000;
Imprisonment 10 months commencing 22 November 2009, non parole period 3 months commencing 22 November 2009 Shoplifting value
<=$2000;
Imprisonment 10 months commencing 22 February 2010, non-parole period with conditions 3 months commencing 22 February 2010, release subject to
SupervisionLarceny value <=$2000; Imprisonment 10 months commencing 22 May 2009, non-parole period 3 months commencing 22 May 2009 Shoplifting value
<=$2000
Imprisonment 10 months non-parole period 3 months Parramatta Drug Court 23 April 2009 Supply regulated goods
in public street
$250 fine (call up) (see below matter in Burwood Local Court dated 8 July 2008) Burwood Local Court 26 March 2009 Possess prohibited drug $750 fine; drug to be destroyed Burwood Local Court 26 March 2009 Not pay train fare and
hold valid ticket
$400 fine; court costs Burwood Local Court 8 July 2008 Supply regulated goods
in public street
Section 9 bond 12 months Parramatta Local Court 22 October 2007 Shoplifting value
<=$2000
$250 fine; court costs Fairfield Local Court 12 December 2005 Shoplifting value
<=$2000
3 months imprisonment commencing on 24
November 2005Fairfield Local Court 21 July 2005 Goods in personal
custody suspected of
being stolen (not motorvehicle)
2 months imprisonment commencing on 8 July 2005 Enter enclosed land not
prescribed premiseswithout lawful excuse
$300 fine; court costs Fairfield Local Court 12 November 2004 Shoplifting 6 months imprisonment commencing 27 September 2004 Enter enclosed land not
prescribed premiseswithout lawful excuse
$500 fine; court costs Larceny 6 months imprisonment commencing 27 September 2004 Shoplifting value
<=$2000
6 months imprisonment commencing 27 September 2004 Shoplifting value
<=$2000
6 months imprisonment commencing 27 September 2004 Goods in personal
custody suspected of
being stolen (not motorvehicle)
6 months imprisonment commencing 27 September 2004 Burwood Local Court 29 October 2004 Bring/introduce
proscribed poison intoplace of detention
$500 fine; drug to be destroyed Parramatta District
Court
3 February 2003 Larceny Conviction confirmed (see record re Burwood Local Court, imprisonment 6
months commencing 11 October 2002)Warrant, failure to
appear for breach ofgood behaviour bond
Conviction confirmed (see record re Burwood Local Court, imprisonment 6
months commencing 11 October 2002)Goods in personal
custody suspected of
being stolen (not motorvehicle)
Conviction confirmed (see record re Burwood Local Court, imprisonment 6
months commencing 11 October 2002)Bankstown Local
Court
18 April 2002 Larceny Periodic detention 12 months commencing 26 April 2002 Shoplifting value
<=$2000
Periodic detention 12 months commencing 26 April 2002 Goods in personal
custody suspected of
being stolen (not motorvehicle)
Rising of the court (this is the shortest possible period of custody. The restraint on the offender’s liberty is in the courtroom from the moment the sentence is passed until the court adjourns). Shoplifting value
<=$2000
Periodic detention 12 months commencing 26 April 2002 Liverpool Local Court 5 March 2002 Enter enclosed land not
prescribed premiseswithout lawful excuse
$100 fine; court costs Larceny $300 fine Person >=18 enter
restricted area withoutoffering ticket
$50 fine Cross running line not
using bridge/subway
$50 fine Goods in personal custody reasonably suspected of being stolen $300 fine; court costs Downing Centre Local
Court
5 October 2001 Larceny value <=$2000 $150 fine Muswellbrook Local
Court
21 November 2000 Self-administer/attempt
self-administerprohibited drug
Rising of the court Fairfield Local Court 30 August 2000 Shoplifting 6 months imprisonment commencing 25 August 2000 Goods in personal
custody reasonably suspected of being stolen6 months imprisonment commencing 25 August 2000 Larceny 6 months imprisonment commencing 25 August 2000 Parramatta Local Court 24 July 2000 Goods in personal custody reasonably suspected of being stolen Section 9 bond; 2 years supervision NSW probation service Fairfield Local Court 9 May 2000 Section 80AA warrant
larceny (not exceeding
$5000) (these warrants
are now under s25(2)
Crimes (SentencingProcedure) Act)
$400 fine; court costs Parramatta Local Court 30 March 2000 Person >=18 not make
ticket available forinspection
$50 fine Wilfully put his/her feet
on seats$50 fine Receive/dispose stolen
property – min.
indicatable offence
<=$5000$300 fine Fairfield Local Court 24 November 1999 Enter enclosed land not
prescribed premiseswithout lawful excuse
$400 fine; court costs Fairfield Local Court 10 November 1999 Enter enclosed land not
prescribed premiseswithout lawful excuse
$400 fine; court costs Liverpool Local Court 23 July 1998 Goods in personal
custody reasonably suspected of being stolenFixed term 4 months Goods in personal
custody reasonably suspected of being stolenFixed term 4 months Unlawfully possess etc a prescribed restricted
substance
Fixed term 1 month Carry cutting weapon
upon apprehension
Fixed term 3 months Break and enter building commit felony (steal) Minimum term 12 months additional term 4 months Break and enter building commit felony (steal) Minimum term 12 months additional term 4 Months Burwood Local Court 3 December 1996 Larceny Fixed term 3 months commencing 3 December 1996 ending 2 March 1997 Receiving Fixed term 3 months commencing 3 December 1996 ending 2 March 1997 Larceny Fixed term 3 months commencing 29 August 1996 ending 28 November 1996 Break enter and steal (2
counts)
Minimum term 9 months commencing 3 December 1996 additional term 6 months attend at detox clinic Goods in custody Minimum term 9 months commencing 29 August 1996 additional term 6 months Fairfield Local Court 24 April 1995 Possess prohibited drug (heroin) Fixed term 1 month Fairfield Local Court 17 December 1993 Larceny (2 counts) On each charge, NBC (not before the Court) taken into account on Form 2 at Liverpool District Court Possess housebreaking
implement
On each charge, NBC taken into account on Form 2 at Liverpool District Court Goods in custody On each charge, NBC taken into account on Form 2 at Liverpool District Court Administer a prohibited
drug
On each charge, NBC taken into account on Form 2 at Liverpool District Court Liverpool District
Court
1 December 1993 Assault with intent to
rob with striking
(alternative, 1. assaultwith intent to rob)
1. Minimum term 12 months from 1 December 1993, additional term 2 years release subject to supervision (matters taken
into account on form 2, see above)Burwood Local Court 10 September 1993 Goods in custody $500 fine Waverley Local Court 21 July 1993 Take and drive
conveyance
Minimum term 9 months additional term 3 months Drive whilst cancelled Fixed term 2 months disqualified 6 months Fairfield Local Court 11 February 1992 Stealing Fixed term 2 months Possess prohibited drug Fixed term 1 month Fairfield Local Court 7 August 1991 Offensive language $100 fine Offensive implement $700 fine Fairfield Local Court 22 May 1990 Steal motor vehicle Minimum term 9 months additional term 3 months from 22 May 1990 Disqualified driver Fixed term 4 months from 22 May 1990; licence disqualified 6 months Fail to stop after
accident
$300 fine; disqualified 6 months Negligent driving $200 fine Fairfield Local Court 4 January 1990 Driving in manner
dangerous
$300 fine; disqualified 18 months Unregistered driving $75 fine Unlicensed driving $75 fine Uninsured driving $75 fine Resist arrest $100 fine Liverpool Local Court 20 September 1989 Offensive conduct $250 fine Fairfield Local Court 28 September 1988 Goods in custody 3 months HL (hard labour) Fairfield Local Court 25 May 1988 Supply prohibited drug
(cannabis)
12 months HL Possess prohibited drug
(cannabis)
6 months HL Liverpool District
Court
8 October 1987 Stealing Appeal against conviction by the Bankstown Local Court to 6 months periodic detention: $750 fine and payment of compensation $40; appeal dismissed and conviction
confirmed, in lieu 300 hours community service orderLiverpool Local Court 14 September 1987 Stealing $50 fine Fairfield Local Court 9 September 1987 Possess prohibited drug
(cannabis)
$300 fine Liverpool Local Court 2 September 1987 Stealing (2 counts) $100 fine and $15 witness expenses Goods in custody Recognisance s558 self $500 good behaviour 3 years supervision probation and parole service (former s558 Crimes Act) Fairfield Local Court 4 March 1987 Stealing $200 fine or 4 days hard labour Liverpool Local Court 17 September 1986 Stealing $200 fine Stealing $500 fine or 10 days hard labour
2
0